Search form

The Justice Department and other parties that have aligned
against Microsoft have invoked novel economic theories to justify
new antitrust doctrines and to revive old ones. Those theories
imply that in high-technology markets, a product or technology with
a head start or large market share may have an insurmountable
advantage over its rivals. The theories invoke factors called
network effects, increasing returns, or path dependence. Any of
those can allegedly create lock-in, leaving markets stuck with
inferior products or technologies. But these theories leave out
important elements of real-world markets. Reexamination of the
empirical evidence demonstrates that the claimed examples of
lock-in are not market failures.

Scrutiny of the economic theories brought to bear against
Microsoft show similar failings. Despite allegations that Microsoft
uses lock-in to engage in exclusionary and predatory business
practices, exclusion and predation do not explain its behavior.
Furthermore, antitrust enforcers should not focus on who has the
right to control the Windows desktop. Such a right matters little
because consumers can alter the desktop quite easily. At any rate,
the market will eventually put desktop rights in the hands of those
who value them most. Finally, progress in software inevitably
involves increased functionality. A legal rule against adding
functions to software products would impede progress in the
software industry.